‘Like a drum, we’re beaten on both sides’: Chhattisgarh ex-sarpanch accused of role in Maoist attack tells Scroll.in on May 22. Podium Panda went missing on May 3. While the police claim that he confessed to involvement in the Sukma attack, his wife says he was detained illegally.

Today, the Podiyam Panda ‘surrender’ is the first one being challenged before a court. The entire experience shows the questionable legality of the surrender process in Chhatisgarh, say activists and academic involved in the case.

In the habeas case filed by his wife, Muiye Panda, Podiyam Panda came and went before the High Court under police guard. What value does such a production have?

The Supreme Court has held in several judgments that a statement made before a magistrate by someone who is in police custody and thinks they will go back to police custody cannot be relied upon. This applies to the Panda case too.

Podiyam Panda, three term sarpanch of Chintagufa (till 2010) was picked up by the police from near his village in Sukma district on May 3rd. This was reported to his family by tendu patta pluckers who witnessed how security forces beat him up badly while taking him into their custody. The fact that he had been picked up by the police was also reported in the press (Patrika 4.5.2017, Dainik Bhaskar 7.5.2017, The Hindu 7.5.2017).

His family attempted to meet him several times but was not allowed to. Finally, on May 12, in desperation, his wife, Podiyam Muiye, who is currently the sarpanch of Chintagufa, filed a habeas corpus case in the Bilaspur High Court.

Four other people were picked up with Panda, Podiyam Sushil aka Singha s/o Mooka, studying in 12th standard & staying in PMT hostel Sukma who was home on summer vacation in Minpa, doing tendu patta work; Podiyam Hurra s/o Hidma, studying in school in Gadiras; Vetti Malla s/o Vetti Bodu, and Hadma, r/o Minpa. None of them have been produced before a magistrate. At least two of them are minors.

Panda is a member of the CPI and not a Naxalite. In April 2016, his wife and brother were taken before a Maoist jan adalat for co-operating with the administration and fined.

High Court hearings

At the hearings on May 15 & 16, the judge repeatedly asked the police what law were they were holding him under, even if they claimed Panda had surrendered. The police was unable to answer. On May 17, the police finally filed an affidavit saying that Podiyam Panda had surrendered on May 9, that he had asked for police protection and that he was staying – of his own free will without threat and coercion – in the police transit camp. Upon the police saying he was free to go if he wanted, the Court that day asked for him to be produced in Bilaspur on May 22. This was already ten days since the habeas had been filed, and nearly three weeks since he was taken into police custody.

In the meantime, the police held a press conference in Sukma in which Podiyam Panda was produced and made to ‘confess’ to being involved in the Burkapal, Tadmetla and other Maoist attacks. The SP also claimed that Panda had ‘confessed’ to helping an urban network of journalists, traders, politicians and activists meet Maoists.

On May 22, Panda was brought to the High Court under heavy police escort and not allowed to meet his family and friends. In court, the Judge simply asked him whether he had been beaten or tortured to which he answered ‘no’ in monosyllables. The Judge then asked him whether he wanted to stay with the police or go with his family, to which he said he would stay with the police. The judge did not ask him when he had been picked up. The judge allowed the family to meet him after this, but noted that he would not be allowed to change the statement he had already made in court.

Outside the court, when Panda’s wife and children attempted to meet him, they, along with her lawyers, Shalini Gera and Sudha Bhardwaj, and CPI leader Manish Kunjam were abused by the ASP Sukma, Jitendra Shukla, who told them they would have to file another habeas if they wanted to meet him directly. This is a clear contempt of the High Court order which allowed the wife to meet him. Finally, on the intercession of a court security officer, his wife and children were allowed to meet him briefly.

During this meeting, Panda told his wife that he had been badly tortured. Muiye reported that he was trembling when speaking to her, and it was apparent to her that he was under tremendous pressure. It is apparent that he was severely warned not to tell the truth in court. Muiye is now scared for her own life.

After Monday’s High Court hearing, Jitendra Shukla, ASP Sukma put out a triumphant message on social media saying that Panda had exposed the lawyers in court, and that Panda had told the Court that women lawyers were keeping his wife, Muiye, captive and preventing her from meeting him. Shukla also said that Panda had filed an application with the police asking them to take action against his wife’s lawyers. In fact, no such statements were made by Podiyam Panda in court. Further, Muiye Panda (w/o Podiyam Panda) and Komal Panda (brother of Podiyam Panda) held a press conference in Raipur on May 17 and again in Bilaspur on May 22, and by no means could anyone say they were coerced.

Gaps in Panda’s statement before the Court
The following points must be noted:

How can the police explain the gap between May 3rd when Panda was picked up and May 9th when he is claimed to have surrendered?
Why did the Court not ask the police about this?

Why did the Court not enable his family to meet him before giving a statement or allow him to change his statement after meeting his family? It has been held by the SC and is also established procedure that a person should not be taken straight from long duration police custody to give a statement, without a cooling off period where they are not in police custody (see below).

Are the police claiming that he needs protection from his own wife and children?

How likely is it that a man would rather stay with the police than with his own wife and children?

Why did the Court not order a medical examination despite his family’s claim that he was being tortured?

If he was free, as the ASP Sukma claimed, why did the ASP prevent him from meeting his wife?

The Questionable Legality of Chhattisgarh’s Surrender Strategy

The case of Podiyam Panda also calls into question the entire surrender strategy of the Chhattisgarh government.

The surrender policy assumes voluntary surrender and only deals with what should be done after surrender in terms of screening eligibility for rehabilitation.

The screening committee of the Chhattisgarh government has found that 97% of the ‘surrenders’ in 2015-16 are not of Naxal cadre and therefore do not qualify as surrenders. In other words, they have cast doubt on their own police.

The policy does not provide any means to test whether the surrender is voluntary.

Unlike in an arrest where a person should, by law, be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, there is no such requirement for surrenderees.

This loophole has enabled the Chhattisgarh police to use ‘surrenders’ as a way of keeping large numbers of people in police custody without any legal encumbrance, where they may be coerced or tortured.

The Podiyam Panda ‘surrender’ is the first one being challenged before a court.

Since a surrender is analogous to a confession (i.e. in that the surrendered person claims to have been involved with Maoists and now expresses a desire to be with the police instead), it should be given the same status as a statement made to the police in custody. However, under current practice it is never tested before any magistrate.
Supreme Court judgments on statements made before Court while in police custody

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a statement made by a person who is in police custody and thinks they will go back to police custody cannot be relied upon as being the whole truth. The fear of return to police custody may inhibit a free and frank statement, even to a court.

In Rabindra Kumar Pal @Dara Singh vs. Republic of India January 21, 2011, the SC held: “Confessions of various accused persons, particularly, Rabi Soren (A9), Mahadev Mahanta (A11) and Turam Ho (A12) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') cannot be considered to be voluntary on account of the fact that all the co-accused persons were produced before the Magistrate from the police custody and were remanded back to police custody.”

In the Parliament Attack case, (2005) 11 SCC 600, ruling out the confessions asserted by the state to be “ voluntary” upon the argument that the detenue did not speak of any coercion or ill treatment when produced before the magistrate, the Supreme Court said ““The lofty purpose behind the mandate that the maker of confession shall be sent to judicial custody by the CJM before whom he is produced is to provide an atmosphere in which he would feel free to make a
complaint against the police, if he so wishes. The feeling that he will be free from the shackles of police custody after production in the Court will minimize, if not remove, the fear psychosis by which he may be gripped.” “T

Cooling off period needed before statement in Court
In Panda’s case he was produced in Court and made his statement before the judges with the police standing right behind him. He did not have an opportunity to interact with his family or lawyers before making the statement.

According to the Punjab & Haryana HC rules, “The examination of an accused person, immediately after the police brings him into court, is not desirable. Ordinarily, the magistrates should remand the accused to a sub-jail for a period of at least 24 hours before his statement is recorded.
It should further be made clear to him that whether he makes or does not make a confession, he will not be sent back to the police custody, but will be sent to sub- jail, where the police or the investigating officer shall have no control over him. The fact that this has been done should be recorded.”

Demands by Family of Panda, as Expressed by Activists and Lawyers arguing the case:

The whole Panda case of ‘surrender’ and production before the High Court displays a shocking miscarriage of justice. Podiyam Panda has been in police custody for three weeks and has gone back to police custody.

The Chhattisgarh High Court should again record his statement free from police custody, after giving him some time in judicial custody.

The Court must order that a medical test be conducted on Podiyam Panda outside the state.The very fact that he will not be in the fetters of police custody and before a CJM under Section 32(4) would make him feel free to represent to the CJM about the police conduct or the treatment meted out to him. The haunting fear of again landing himself into police custody soon after appearance before the CJM, would be an inhibiting factor against speaking anything adverse to the police.”

In State of Maharashtra vs. Damu (2000) 6 SCC 269, the Court had held "19. “(a) Magistrate who proposed to record the confession has to ensure that the confession is free from police interference. Even if he was produced from police custody, the Magistrate was not to record the confession until the lapse of such time, as he thinks necessary to extricate his mind completely from fear of the police to have the confession in his own way by telling the Magistrate the true facts.”

The Court must take notice of the illegality of the surrender policy and hold the government to account.

The press should refrain from publishing scurrilous allegations about Panda and others put out by the police on the basis of so-called confessional statements extracted
from Panda in police custody.

The safety of Panda’s family must be guaranteed.

(This was written in the form of a press statement by Nandini Sundar, academic, Delhi University)

The post A ‘Surrender’ Under Challenge: The Case of Podiyam Panda, Chhattisgarh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image: Ramesh Pathania/Mint

They are charged with organising on the night of November 4 2016, the murder with sharp weapons of a tribal man Shamnath Baghel in his village Nama. The police claims that the murder was to avenge Baghel’s protests against Maoist violence in his village.
 
as ‘fabricated’ and ‘a direct assault on our democratic polity’ which ‘indicates the growing trend of authoritarianism in the state’ by the CPI (M). This is the latest in a long roll-call of cases filed by the local police against those who tried to record the truth of what was happening in this troubled region.

Bastar is one of the most dispossessed enclaves of the country. Outsider settlers savagely dispossessed local tribal communities of their lands and forest produce, trapping them in cycles of debt.

Dispossession from their lands and forests continued in the hands of the ‘developmental state’, for roads, factories, mines and the so-called ‘scientific management of forests. This dispossession became even more acute with the advance of the neo-liberal state, as for-profit powerful companies grew impatient to extract the forest and mineral wealth of the lands occupied by indigenous tribal communities.

This ferocious, sustained and multi-armed oppression and dispossession led some tribal people to support and join far-left Maoist groups, who promised them justice and protection.

The state responded, not by addressing the massive injustices and exploitation, but by constructing this in the public discourse as a grave security challenge to the integrity of the nation. It unleashed what is not less than a civil war, with various arms of the state using every weapon in their arsenals. It is now standard drill for villages to be routinely raided and for villagers to be rounded up and detained for alleged Maoist sympathies. Some do support the Maoists against what they see as an oppressive state, whereas many of them are only by-standers and persons coerced into support.

Their predicament and insecurity was aggravated further, when the state encouraged armed vigilante groups of surrendered Maoists to turn upon their own people with rape, arson, intimidation and killings, silently or openly supported by the police. The Salwa Judum for four bloody years between 2005 and 2008, undertook mass burning of villages and forced the residents into camps, as well as unleashed massive killings and rapes. Although Salwa Judum is banned by the Supreme Court, new vigilante groups are being openly encouraged by the police administration.

The Maoists in the meanwhile have also splintered into rival factions, and often are riddled with violent rivalries and corruption. They enjoy some real support from oppressed tribal people, especially some young people, but are also known to resort to brutal intimidation, targeted killings of alleged ‘informers’, and periodic violent assaults on security forces, leading to the tragic loss of life of large numbers of usually junior members of the forces.

The ‘crime’ of Nandini Sundar and her colleagues has been that they have bravely both documented the recurring human rights violations of the security forces and vigilante groups propped up by the state; and challenged these in the country’s highest courts. It was Sundar’s petition in the Supreme Court that led it to ban the Salwa Judum. But especially since the IG Police (Bastar range) SRP Kalluri took charge, new vigilante formations like the Salwa Judum have surfaced. Baghel who was killed belonged to one such vigilante formation called Tangiya (meaning ‘axe’).

Caught in the unending cycles of violence of a security state and of militants of the extreme left, there seems no end to the suffering of the indigenous communities which have long inhabited the forested plateau and hills of Bastar. Attempts to silence independent and credible voices like those of Sundar and Prasad will only leave them even more isolated and hopeless.
 
(Writer is the author of Looking Away: Inequality, Prejudice and Indifference in New India)

This article was first published on Hindustan Times and republished with author permission.

The post The ‘crime’ of documenting human rights violations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sitting in her home at a village around 400 km from Raipur, Shamnath Baghel's wife Vimla told NDTV that she didn't name Nandini Sundar or anyone at all, even the killers.

Vimla says the family was sleeping on November 4, when the Maoists knocked on their door.

"When I did not open the door, they broke it down. They barged in and dragged my husband out of the house. They had guns, swords…They pointed a gun at me and asked me to stay inside. There were 15-20 men… I did not know any of them. I could not see them properly as they flashed a torch at me. They did not say a word. They took him and killed him on the road," said Vimla.

Did they take the name of Nandini Sundar? "No," she said, adding that she gave no names to the police.
 
The entire story may be read here
 
Meanwhile, the Chhatisgarh government assured the Supreme Court today that it will not arrest Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar, who was named as an accused in the alleged murder of a tribal person in Sukma district of Chhattisgarh.The assurance came as the bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel indicated that they may put on hold the FIR in which Sundar and other civil society activists have been named as accused in the November 4 murder of Shamnath Baghel by Maoists.
 
 
Related Articles:
Police term accused Professors Naxals, ‘Attack on Activism’ says booked Professor
Online Petition demands Withdrawal of Charges against Sundar, Prasad and Others

The post Never Named Anyone, Says Wife Of Murdered Tribal On Professor Nandini Sundar – NDTV appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prof Nandini Sundar

The petition, uploaded by Prof Aparna Sundar addressed to the president, prime minister and home minister of the country, alleges that the charges have been fabricated by police.

On Sunday, Chhattisgarh police booked Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Professor Archana Prasad, Delhi University (DU) professor Nandini Sundar, Vineet Tiwari of Joshi Adhikar Sansthan, Delhi, Chhattisgarh CPI(M) state secretary Sanjay Parate, Mangalram Karma, and Manju Kawasi, CPI activist and Sarpanch of Guphidi in Sukma district for the alleged murder of a tribal villager Shamnath Baghel on November 4. Baghel had earlier this year complained to the police that Prof Sundar and others are inciting tribals against the government.

SabrangIndia had earlier reported that the Chhattisgarh police had called all the accused academicians and activists ‘Naxals’, and had booked them under sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 and 149 of IPC.

However, talking to SabrangIndia, Prof Prasad and Parate had called the allegations ‘bogus’ and had termed it as an attack on activism. Several academicians have since stepped forward showing their support, including JNU Teachers’ Association and the said petitioner.

The petition, which has received support from 404 people so far, elaborates on work done by those named in the FIR in the insurgency-afflicted area and their repeated attempts at achieving peace in Bastar. It has also blamed Chhattisgarh police for fabricating the charges in order to intimidate the activists. It has been endorsed by many users who claim to be belonging to several other countries.

Read the full text of the petition below:

We, the undersigned, are outraged by recent charges of murder that have been laid against Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar, JNU professor Archana Prasad, Vineet Tiwari (of Joshi Adhikar Sansthan, Delhi), Chhattisgarh CPI(M) state secretary, Sanjay Parate, Mangalram Karma, and Manju Kawasi, CPI activist and Sarpanch of Guphidi in Sukma district, by the Chhattisgarh police in the killing of Shamnath Baghel.
 
The charges are patently fabricated, and follow a pattern of intimidation by the Chhattisgarh police every time evidence is released of their lawless prosecution of the war against the Maoists. Earlier this year, Sundar, Prasad, Tiwari and Parate were part of a fact-finding team that looked at the impact of Maoist violence and state excesses on ordinary villagers in Bastar, finding that they were victims of fake encounters, rapes, arrests, beatings, IED blasts, and killing of informers, implicating Maoists, police, and security forces. The residents of Bastar were also found to be facing the renewal of attacks by civilian militias armed by the state. At that time too, the district administration of Bastar had tried to implicate the fact-finding team on fake charges on the basis of a contrived complaint. More recently, when the police were charge-sheeted on the basis of evidence gathered by Sundar and others for carrying out arson in an operation in 2011, they retaliated by burning effigies of her and other activists and journalists in order to intimidate and incite violence against them.
 
Sundar and others have put on record their unequivocal condemnation of the killing of Shamnath Baghel. Their writing and interventions on the ongoing war in Bastar have consistently condemned all forms of violence, whether by the state or by the Maoists.
 
We are saddened by the climate of silencing of dissent that is becoming widespread in India and concerned that the work of researchers, journalists, lawyers and activists is being monitored and controlled to quell critical scrutiny of governmental actions. We believe such silencing of opposing views poses a grave danger to the democratic values of India.
 
We condemn the police tactics of intimidating and harassing of journalists, lawyers, researchers, political leaders and human rights activists who have been documenting and speaking out against the violence and brutality unleashed by the police, paramilitary, and civilian militias against the local population of Bastar in the war against the Maoists. We demand that the Government of India unconditionally withdraw all charges against all the six persons who have been falsely accused by Chhattisgarh police. We further demand that an inquiry be set up to interrogate the manner in which the police is interfering with law and taking the liberty to frame researchers and activists to create an atmosphere of terror.

The post Online Petition demands Withdrawal of Charges against Sundar, Prasad and Others appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Prof Archana Prasad. Image credit: Youtube

Police said 10 persons have been booked under sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 and 149 of IPC.

The FIR based on the complaint lodged by the deceased’s wife also names Vineet Tiwari associated with Delhi’s Joshi Adhikar Sansthan and Sanjay Parate, state secretary, Chhatisgarh CPI (M) and other localites. 

Bastar SP Rajendra Dash told SabrangIndia, “This is an extremely serious issue. FIR has been registered and investigation is underway."

Interestingly, Prof Prasad told SabrangInidia that she hasn’t been to the village in last six months, and Prof Sundar has told ANI that she hasn’t been to the area since May.

When questioned about the role of the Delhi-based professors and the political leader in the case, he said, “All of them are Naxalites. All of them. Strict action will be taken against them.”

Armed Naxals had allegedly killed the villager, Shamnath Baghel, with sharp weapons on late night on Friday (November 4) at his residence in Nama village of Tongpal area. Earlier this year in April, Baghel had filed a complaint against Sundar and others with the police and had accused them of inciting tribals against the government and seeking their support for Maoists.

Dubbing the charges against her 'baseless', Prof Arachana Prasad told SabranIndia, “This is clearly done by Chhattisgarh government in an attempt to keep Salwa Judum alive. This is the reason they’re looking for scapegoats and we’re being targeted, because we’re academicians. I’ve been going to Bastar since last 30 years and know a lot more than the police, who’re speaking of ‘strict action’. All of this is politically motivated.”

Prof Prasad also said that she hasn’t been to Bastar in last six months and claimed that there is no connection whatsoever between her and the alleged murder.

Prof Prasad accused the government of waging an attack on activism through such scheming. “They [CPI (M)] are not Maoists. They have a political party. They’re trying to put the onus on democratic political parties. They (government) are obviously trying to attack the political activism.”

Parate expressed similar concerns over the allegations and said, “This is nothing but an offensive on the very structure of the democracy. It’s happening everywhere in the country, not just in Bastar. They are trying to impede the activities of political parties. They don’t want political parties who are speaking up for tribals, who’re taking a stand against the oppressors. They want to eliminate our activism.”

Calling the charges against him and the professors ‘bogus’ he said, “Even they (police) know that there is no case. Still, they’ll drag us into it just to make things difficult for us. But, it won’t work.”

Parate also said that a state-wide protest will be planned to condemn the alleged framing of the professors and political activists.
 

The post Police term accused Professors Naxals, ‘Attack on Activism’ says booked Professor appeared first on SabrangIndia.